Comparison
FigJam vs Lark
On the evidence we track, Lark leads this comparison with a composite score of 80/100. Scores are only directly comparable because these tools share a category; the full breakdown and every source is below.
Capabilities
Feature-by-feature on the axes that matter for collaboration software. “-” means undocumented, not absent.
| Capability | FigJam | Lark |
|---|---|---|
| Modality | ||
| Messaging | ✓ | ✓ |
| Video meetings | - | ✓ |
| Whiteboard | ✓ | - |
| Meetings | ||
| Screen sharing | - | - |
| Recording / transcription | - | Recording + AI notes |
| Security | ||
| End-to-end encryption | - | - |
| SSO / SCIM | ✓ | ✓ |
| Access | ||
| Guest / external access | ✓ | - |
| Compliance | ||
| Compliance controls | ✓ | ✓ |
| Deployment | ||
| Hosting | Cloud only | Cloud only |
| Scale | ||
| Max participants | - | 500 for video meetings |
| Ecosystem | ||
| App marketplace | - | - |
| Public API / bot framework | ✓ | ✓ |
| Commercial | ||
| Free tier | ✓ | ✓ |
Comparison generated from independently-sourced facts. Every value links to its source and retrieval date. See the method.